Truly, these are not usually considered but I think it is possible to pay attention to them, and if we do, it would affect our dramaturgy. I shall check the references you have provided but I am thinking there is so much more to be gained for such research on the body of the audience with outdoor theatres like in the village square or those structures that are designed to replicate such. I am sure this is just because of my subjectivity but it is to me a viable research path. On the body of the researcher, I would say that would be a point of interest and a promising one with anthropological reaesrach on the theatre.

In our evaluation of theatrical performance, we should certainly try to triangulate our sources . As you have very rightly observed , total reliance on the body of actors or performers is not a valid way of ascertaining performance quality because the specialized researcher and or the interviewer cannot provide us with a clear picture . The interpretation involving the theater goers or spectators would be very rewarding because it can reveal an in-depth explanation about the real merits/ demerits of the play under scrutiny.

Adewale Ajayi, thank you for your comment. Outdoor theatre might be an interesting approach to the question of researcher's/reviewer's body. It supports the issue of involvement of researcher's/reviewer's senses. I mean, it seems like only sight and hearing are applied in more traditional theatre (although this is not necessary the case), while in outdoor theatre all senses need to be included. Phenomenology could be very helpful in this respect, especially the work of Maurice Merleau-Ponty. And post-phenomenology, too. Anthropology of theatre could be another very fruitful approach.

Thank you for your reply, Prof. Reza Biria. I agree with your observation about the merits of a play as well. But of course not in a negative way. However, a new 'actor', this is the body, could be an awarding gesture. I was always more interested in relationship between the stage and the auditorium than the relationships on the stage. There is a constant flow of communication between the first and the second. Both ways, despite impression that the flow is one way. Perhaps this is the reason why we believe the researcher and the reviewer are in passive relation to the stage. So should be their bodies. Maybe this situation is culturally specific.

First Tomaz I must appreciate you for starting this discussion. I just want to ask our discussants here how we would view the body, postures, gestures and their implications and deep meanings, seen and unseen relations if we look at ritual in a ritual space, a square, a groove surrounded by or around which the ritual participants are gathered while the ritual officiants are located in a central spot or move between spaces around the ritual arena. I am sure this is not the particular direction of discussion here but i am sure the performances are related and could be looked at from the perspectives of body performance, embodied performance and bodily implications.

Adewale, one can start from many perspectives since ritual performance is a multy layered phenomenon. The body can be a stage prop, a communication mean, a bridge between outer and inner world, and so on. How a researcher 'touches' the body depends on her or his assumptions about the nature of the phenomenon one investigate.

Fantastic, thank you Tomaz